October 2016

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

"the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion"

Deacon Greg has published a piece noting the firing of a University of Ilinois professor who dared speak against homosexuality and who did so from a perspective of Catholic teaching. The Deacon focuses on the backdrop to the story and it's compelling and interesting.

Since there is a question on the final exam about utilitarianism (see the review sheet), I thought I would help with an example. I realized after my lectures on moral theory that even though I talked about the substance of utilitarianism, I did not identify it as such and so you may not have been able to see it.

It turns out that our discussion of homosexuality brings up the issue of utilitarianism. In class, our discussion of the morality of homosexual acts was very incomplete because any moral issue about which people disagree ALWAYS raises a more fundamental issue about criteria. In other words, by what criteria should we judge whether a given act is right or wrong?

Before looking at the issue of criteria, however, we have to remind ourselves of the ever-present tendency in all of us to judge morality by emotion. The most frequent reason I hear people supporting same-sex marriage is that they know some gay couples or individuals. Empathy is a noble human quality but right or wrong does not depend on who is doing the action or on how I feel about those people, just as judging an action wrong should not depend on disliking someone. This might seem obvious to a right thinking person but I have encountered many well-educated people who do not (or cannot?) make the distinction between persons and acts when engaging moral reasoning. I encourage you to read the final essay editorial I sent earlier to reflect on this. In short, to judge an action wrong is not to condemn a person. A person and his/her acts can be distinguished for the purposes of morality.

So, then, by what criterion should we judge whether sexual acts are right or wrong? This is where utilitarianism comes in. Utilitarianism in the popular sense is fundamentally a moral theory that judges right or wrong by its practical outcomes. It is somewhat akin to a cost/benefit analysis. So, when a woman is deciding whether it's right to have an abortion, the utilitarian says it's right or wrong based on what the best outcome is. Similarly, a man who is trying to decide whether he should cheat on his wife, if he is a utilitarian, will weigh the various consequences. If the cheating side of the ledger is better, he will conclude that it's okay to cheat. If the faithful side is better, he will refrain from cheating.

I think it's fair to say that many, maybe most Americans employ some type of utilitarianism in their moral decision making. But there are at least two problems. One is that to judge the best outcome can be very subjective. What may be judged good for the pregnant woman may not be good for the baby. What may be judged good for the about-to-cheat-husband may not good for his wife or his children. This problem of subjectivity is inherent in utilitarianism for a second reason. Utilitarianism counsels that moral decisions should NOT be based on the inherent meaning of acts. Acts are only good or bad relative to outcomes. The natural law theory that I expounded in class assumes that human acts have an inherent meaning (remember my fist vs. extended hand of friendship example).

One of the most common applications of utilitarianism to sexual morality is the criterion of mutual consent. It is said that any sexual act is okay if the two or more people involved agree. Now no one can (or should) deny that for a sexual act to be moral there must be consent. Certainly, this is one reason why rape is morally wrong. But the question is whether this is enough.

If two men consent to engage in sexual acts, according to utilitarianism, such an act would be morally okay. But notice too that if a ten year old agrees to a sexual act with a 40 year old, such an act would also be moral if even it is illegal under the current law. Notice too that our concern is with morality, not law. So by the consent criterion, we would have to admit certain cases as moral which we presently would not approve of. The case of the 10 and 40 year olds might be excluded by adding a modification like "informed consent." Then as long as both parties agree with sufficient knowledge, the act would be morally okay. A little reflection would show, I think, that "informed consent" might be more difficult to apply in practice than in theory. But another problem would be where to draw the line between moral and immoral acts using only informed consent. For example, if a dog consents to engage in a sexual act with its human master, such an act would also be moral according to the consent criterion. If this impresses you as far-fetched, the point is not whether it might occur but by what criterion we could say that it is wrong.

There's more and you should read every word. Then ponder where it is that we are as a society. Ponder the fact that critical thinking steeped in Natural Law has led to a professor being fired and worse, being shunned, by those who think not but who instead emote.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Wow. This is a remarkably fair and lucid explanation of the Catholic position on morality vs the secular, utilitarian approach. I'm amazed that a student would consider such an honest academic discussion "hate speech," and more amazed that the university would back him up on such PC grounds as wanting to promote "inclusivity." I'm glad to see the professor is pressing his case legally and wish him well.

Well, I'm not amazed, really. Penalizing and prohibiting dissent against liberal moral positions seems to be what "tolerance" is ultimately all about. Thanks for posting this.

Another thing one dare not reference is what the effects of two or more consenting adults actions might have on the greater general populace... as in the pandemic spread of sexually transmitted infection (STI).

We have these pandemics raging across the spectrum of the human race... but if one mentions them as a reason to perhaps suggest that without a great deal of real information about STI's... along with a list of former "lovers" one is considering a rumble with... along with a background check and medical exam of the considered partner and their former partners... ... then nobody is actually making an informed and consenting decision.

Thing is, there's nothing in natural law that precludes two men or two women from engaging in sexual activity. Nothing. Men and women are born gay, and they derive the same psychological, emotional and physical benefits from their sexual activity as heterosexual people do.

This bozo claims gay sex is unnatural because male-to-male anal sex is unnatural, and that male-to-male anal sex is unnatural because it's theoretically dangerous.

ANY sex is theoretically dangerous or potentially unhealthy. Also, heterosexual people engage in anal sex and many homosexual couples don't engage in anal sex.

So...if a gay couple only manually stimulate each other, or orally stimulate each other, are they now okay? Not according to him.

But if heterosexual couples manually or orally stimulate each other, it's okay, because one has a penis and the other a vagina.

Now, I'm willing to bet this guy thinks oral sex is just as bad as anal sex, but where does he stand on manual stimulation?

If a sexual act is immoral, it's immoral regardless of who's engaging in it, right? I mean, it's all about what parts of our bodies are designed to do, correct? Are we meant to manually stimulate penises and clitorises?

Also, are human tongues designed to be put in each others' mouths? Are nipples meant to be manually or orally stimulated by adult men, or anyone else who is not a small child requiring nourishment?

He's fine until his argument basically falls apart until the only way he can relate it all to homosexuality being immoral because, at the end of the day, his argument pretty much amounts to "euwwwww, men having anal sex, yuck!".

According to him, the ONLY moral sex takes place between two married people who are both fertile and both of whose reproductive organs have been found to be operating properly, and involves nothing more than a penis being inserted into a vagina and moved in and out until the male ejaculates.

I think you're completely mis-characterizing what the man is saying. And you seem to be putting words in the man's mouth that he didn't utter, at least not in this piece.

He writes:

This is where Natural Moral Law (NML) objects. NML says that Morality must be a response to REALITY. In other words, sexual acts are only appropriate for people who are complementary, not the same. How do we know this? By looking at REALITY. Men and women are complementary in their anatomy, physiology, and psychology. Men and women are not interchangeable. So, a moral sexual act has to be between persons that are fitted for that act. Consent is important but there is more than consent needed.

One example applicable to homosexual acts illustrates the problem. To the best of my knowledge, in a sexual relationship between two men, one of them tends to act as the "woman" while the other acts as the "man." In this scenario, homosexual men have been known to engage in certain types of actions for which their bodies are not fitted. I don't want to be too graphic so I won't go into details but a physician has told me that these acts are deleterious to the health of one or possibly both of the men. Yet, if the morality of the act is judged only by mutual consent, then there are clearly homosexual acts which are injurious to their health but which are consented to. Why are they injurious? Because they violate the meaning, structure, and (sometimes) health of the human body.

Now recall that I mentioned in class the importance of gaining wisdom from the past. One part of wisdom we gain from such knowledge is how people today came to think of their bodies. I won't go into details here but a survey of the last few centuries reveals that we have gradually been separating our sexual natures (reality) from our moral decisions. Thus, people tend to think that we can use our bodies sexually in whatever ways we choose without regard to their actual structure and meaning. This is also what lies behind the idea of sex change operations. We can manipulate our bodies to be whatever we want them to be.

If what I just said is true, then this disassociation of morality and sexual reality did not begin with homosexuality. It began long ago. But it took a huge leap forward in the wide spread use of artificial contraceptives. What this use allowed was for people to disassociate procreation and children from sexual activity. So, for people who have grown up only in a time when there is no inherent connection between procreation and sex –- notice not natural but manipulated by humans –- it follows "logically" that sex can mean anything we want it to mean.

Natural Moral Theory says that if we are to have healthy sexual lives, we must return to a connection between procreation and sex. Why? Because that is what is REAL. It is based on human sexual anatomy and physiology. Human sexuality is inherently unitive and procreative. If we encourage sexual relations that violate this basic meaning, we will end up denying something essential about our humanity, about our feminine and masculine nature.

First of all, no one is "interchangeable" with anyone else. Two particular men are no more interchangeable than a particular man and a particular women.

It's time we all started encountering each others as fully-realized individuals, not as members of groups.

Secondly, two men or two women may very well be psychologically, intellectually, and emotionally complimenatary, and a man and a woman may not be at all. The physical is really the least of it, in the long run, as anyone who's been married for any length of time knows. Plus, the physical is subjective -- a gay woman is not complimentary to a heterosexual man. If she is physically repelled by being penetrated with a penis, she's not complimentary to a heterosexual male at all. You and the original author of this piece are both reducing people to objects by this kind of thinking. It's actually quite unChristian.

Disease can be spread by swapping spit, to put it crudely. Open mouthed kissing is just as potentially as unhealthy as anal sex. Vaginal penetration by a penis is just as potentially unhealthy for both partners. The thing that makes these acts potentially unhealthy is promiscuity -- engaging in sex with multiple partners is always risky, regardless of orientation. Anal sex is equally risky for both heterosexual and homosexual couples. If you want to make a case for anal sex being unnatural, fine, but what does that have to do with being gay?

According to this dude, "sexual reality" is that it is a unitive and procreative act. Okay. So knowingly infertile heterosexual intercourse is immoral, too.

Thing is, you can twist this any way you like it, but it will always fail because there isn't anything inherently immoral about two committed, loving, gay people marrying and having sex with each other.

If specific acts are immoral, then they're always immoral, regardless of who is engaging in them.

If sex outside marriage is immoral and sex within marriage is moral, then that applies to both gay and straight couples.

He just can't make his argument fit the sexual reality of gay people, so he resorts to the really, really offensive and really, really childish "euwwww, it's icky when two men do it!" argument. Notice, he doesn't make any mention of specific lesbian acts because he knows they're just not as much of an ick factor there -- actually, many heterosexual men and heterosexual women enjoy lesbian sex fantasies.

I think you and Mr. Howell (and myself) would find common ground in the notion that if specific acts are immoral, they're always immoral, regardless of who is engaging in them.

Yet to ignore the biological component in this is to then ignore the precepts of natural law.

Your continued reference to Howell resorting to the "euwww, it's icky" argument ignores a most obvious point. The foundation upon which Howell is arriving at his opinions... is the concept of natural law, which is ancient... He is merely articulating that teaching... you want to make this about Howell when in fact, it's about your problem with natural law as the basis for moral teaching within the Catholic church.

You say your standard for morality comes from natural law... which is great... but you've yet to make the case for sexual acts committed by same sex couple to be in fact natural.

Rather than toss ad hominems Howell's way, why not use natural law to argue your case for affirming or accepting or encouraging homosexual acts... I'm interested in understanding how you would do that.

God, naturally, and by deliberate design, creates a genuine need for companionship and intimacy as part of our human make-up -- it's as real and genuine a driving need as the desire to procreate.

We're not talking about a particular ability or talent -- it's not the same as saying God creates some of us with a gift for painting or writing or engineering or nursing or caring for the land, or whathaveyou.

It's something we are ALL born with -- it's as natural and deliberately designed as our need to breathe and eat and drink and sleep.

God also, by deliberate natural design, created us in His image -- we have free will, and we are creative beings.

So...natural, deliberately designed gay folks use their creativity and free will to figure out how to be sexually intimate with each other.

They, of course, are bound by the same natural moral law all of us are -- using sex for mere personal gratification, objectifying others, using sex as a power game, as a violent act of aggression, promiscuity, etc. is equally wrong for all of us, regardless of orientation.

Labelling specific acts as immoral gets trickier -- yes, anal sex is potentially the riskiest form of sexual expression, but an educated couple can reduce those risks. Is it my cup of tea? Nope. But it's also not something many gay male couples practice, either, so to say homosexuality goes against natural moral law because anal sex is risky doesn't make sense. It's not a gay-specific act.

And, then, of course, when one human entity or institution claims there is only one, narrow, rigid form of sexual expression considered moral, you get into all kinds of murky territory.

As for procreativity, if God, by deliberate design, created sex only for the fertile, then sex is as equally immoral for a couple in which both partners are fully aware of their inability to procreate as a gay couple is.

Anything that does not include gay people as equally morally able to participate in an intimate union is essentially dehumanizing. And relegating one human being to something less, something "other" is most definitely NOT a part of God's deliberate, natural design.

And, sorry, but Howell does resort to some pretty immature, thinly-veiled gay stereotyping, which is why it's really hard to a) take him seriously and b) feel all that sorry for him, whether he deserved to be fired or not.

Caroline... there's much there to agree with... however... there are key points that I continue to object to...

You say that God creates homosexuals by deliberate design... and I might agree... just as God creates people with deformities by design, or those with a predisposition to alcoholism, or those born with incurable diseases... it is a mystery as to the whys surrounding God's occasional creative "disorder"... but to suggest that these occurrences are cause to affirm homosexuality or to embrace alcoholism or to not treat those born with ailments would be to go against common sense.

One doesn't "embrace" alcoholism because alcoholism eventually destroys the human body, destroys the psyche, destroys our ability to be in relationship with others, has a ripple effect on the lives of those close to the alcoholic, etc.

There is nothing negative about a homosexual relationship. Absolutely nothing. Being in a stable, committed relationship benefits human beings, benefits the society those human beings live in, foster better people.

We treat disease and deformity in order to restore human beings to wholeness, to help them lead full lives, lives in which they can thrive and in which they can be part of an intimate union.

When we refuse homosexuals their very humanity, when we insist it is immoral for them to pursue the very thing heterosexuals are encouraged to pursue, we are harming them, and, by extension, we are harming society -- we are harming ourselves.

To deny gay people their humanity, to deny them the richness of a loving, intimate union with another human goes against common sense. Doing so cheapens heterosexual sex, frankly, because it turns people into things defined by their ability to procreate.

There isn't a single argument Howell made in his attempt to categorize gay relationships as immoral according to natural law that wasn't made back in the day (and even now, in some quarters, like my sister-in-law's house, fine Catholic that she is...) to categorize interracial marriage as immoral.

No matter how this guy, or you, or the Church try to dress this up, it all boils down to prejudice, bigotry, and a really immature, grubby, schoolboy take on what they perceive, in their not-very-nice minds to be what goes on physically between two men in an intimate gay relationship.

Sorry, but the natural moral law argument fails here. Completely and utterly fails.

Why the need to dehumanize these people and treat them like they're something "other"?

There are all sorts of bigoted crackpots the world over who have their pet theories and "takes" on what causes homosexuality, and yet no one has ever been able to prove these theories and opinions.

I will never get the need to have to feel you're something better or more loved by God, or whatever it is you people so desperately need to feel in order to go on with your lives. I just don't get it. It's what caused Lucifer to fall -- the need to be loved more, to be better, to be raised above the "other".

Look, you obviously need to believe there's something wrong with gay people, that they're incapable of being fully human in the way straight people are fully human.

All that means is there's something missing in your life, there's an emptiness, a hollowness, and the only way you can feel better about it is to come up with all kinds of theories and theses on why someone else is less worthy and less human than you. Then your emptiness doesn't seem so bad.

But it's still there...that's the thing...it's just so glaringly obvious that it's still there.

That's just sad. No one but God can ever fill that for you, but God can't fill it if you're trying to fill it with hate.

Whatever. You believe what you believe, and I believe what I believe, and God will sort it all out in the end. God is all that matters -- not some crackpot's theory on why gay people aren't quite as human as the rest of us.

Sorry, you've only confirmed my belief that something's gone terribly, terribly wrong in the Catholic Church. The good guys have left and the Church is now filling up with the small minded haters and the bigots and the finger-pointers and Pharisees.

Whatevs. Y'all can have it -- no one else wants it anymore, not even God.

It's interesting I think... I've not gotten personal... I've not decided to psycho-analyze your belief system or to conclude that God wants nothing to do with you or those who think like you... neither have I decided to take this opportunity to besmirch your faith community...

I've not made a single reference to suggest that anyone is less human than me or that God loves me more than anyone else...

When one reads our responses... and when they compare and contrast them...

Caroline, who comes across as the bigot? Who is hate-filled? Who is suggesting who the good guys and the bad guys are? Who is filled with judgment? Who is exhibiting intolerance?

The answers to those questions I believe are telling and indicative...

Dude, you post a link to a guy who believes you can torture the gay out of people. That's when you tipped your hand.

You're a bigot.

That nonsense has been debunked time after time after time and isn't worth the bandwidth the link takes up.

Yes, I am thoroughly intolerant of those who would categorize homosexuality as a mental illness, and who would promote the ignorant and unfounded conclusions of someone whose "work" was sketchy to begin with fifty years ago, and which has been roundly rejected since.

If you believe hooking a gay guy's testicles up to electrodes and zapping him whenever he responds to homoerotic stimuli is moral by ANYONE'S standards, you just proved you're a freakshow of a bigoted, hateful, backwater yahoo.

NARTH (the group you linked to) is the group George Rekels had to resign from after being caught with his rentboy. He personally supervised treatment sessions of children as young as four in which the children were physically punished if they exhibited what might be construed as "effeminate" behavior. That's beyond sick. That's pure evil.

Bieber's supposed gay "cure" results were obtained by using aversion therapy involving electric shock. Even he didn't have a particularly high or lasting "success" rate, and even he finally acknowledged that you couldn't really change sexual orientation, only sexual behavior.

A quick google search will bring up plenty of articles, including original journal articles detailing Bieber's work.

I'm betting if I hooked you up to electrodes and shocked the crap out of you time after time, I could get you to act gay for a while...

The notion you can torture the gay out of folks is as evil as it gets, and that you're promoting it as acceptible to the Catholic Church shows something has indeed gone horribly wrong with the Church.

No ethical psychologist approves of this sort of "therapy", nor does the Catholic Church teach that this is at all moral or appropriate ever. Read your catechism.

Christian conservatives still push for this revolting, dehumanizing behavior, however. The Mormons are real big on it, although the suicide rate of their subjects is starting to get frighteningly high, so maybe they're backing off on it now.

So, yeah, you are who you are...and we all know what that is now...lucky for you I don't believe it's either moral or possible to torture what you are into something else.

Caroline... this is pitiful... you're leaping to conclusions that aren't supported by facts.... just your conjecture... I'm not finding anything about Bieber and shock therapy to treat homosexuals... and this Rekker story has nothing to do with Bieber...

The notion that I'm promoting torturing the gay out of people is so far fetched as to actually make you look silly... or worse.

I think we should agree that we disagree... and you can go on to other sites to spread what you deem to be true...

My conclusions are facts, and anyone who is genuinely interested in the truth will bother to do the research.

You posted the NARTH link -- that you consider NARTH a legitimate source of information regarding homosexual behavior given the Rekels event and given that NARTH approves of aversion therapy is yours to defend, not mine. Bieber's work is so dated and has been so roundly rejected for so long, it's laughable that you even put the name out there.

When you post links to NARTH and point to NARTH'S Bieber page as your sources for why homosexuality is a disorder, then you are promoting the beliefs of that organization and that person.

That's yours to defend, not mine. You want to defend your link to that organization and your use of Bieber's work to support your opinion that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, then you man up and defend it already.

I don't look silly. You do, and for either of the reasons I stated above: a) you willy-nilly picked a link that you thought would make you look informed or b) you really believe what they peddle.

I don't "disagree" with the notion that homosexual people are suffering from a mental illness that can be "cured" using disgusting, cruel, dehumanizing methods. I find it reprehensible, even evil.

I'm not "spreading" anything. You are. You're spreading hate and you're openly advocating for the mistreatment of gay people.

Worse, when you get called on your thinly-veiled gay-bashing, you turn into a coward and run away after implying I'm the one spreading hate for telling you it's immoral to use aversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality, and that it's specifically against Church teaching to do so.

You can pretend you're not a gay-basher or a hater for whatever cowardly PR reasons you feel you need to, but only someone who agrees with your sick approach to gay men and women would buy your back-peddling BS for a second.

You're a disgrace. You're a shameful disgrace. Shame on you. God sees what you are and what evil you harbor in your heart. God sees. God knows. God is not a word you use for political reasons, boyo, he's real, and he sees and he knows. Shame on you.

I am a disgrace... in many ways... and beg God's mercy... but you've completely mis-characterized my thinking on this issue, you've deliberately made false claims, you've exaggerated and made things up about NARTH, about Bieber and about me... Caroline... you're projecting. It's plain and simple... you are what you're claiming I am... I would strongly suggest you make peace... with yourself...

Caroline, the aversion therapy you describe does seem extreme, even primitive, but who knows what kinds of strange things doctors might do to try and help their patients before they find out what works. Not long ago, I'm told, surgeons would cut people open to hitch up their organs so they would match anatomical charts. Then they figured out that gravity pulls on organs when a patient stands for an x-ray, in ways gravity doesn't on cadaver's organs on a table (from which the charts are made.) Barbaric? Sure. Evil? Well, I guess that depends on what you think of the doctor.

I wonder, Caroline, would you recommend surgery for someone who didn't think their body fit they way they see themselves? You know, a sex change, because God didn't quite get their body to match their image. Some people might find that to be a bit barbaric, even offensive, to nature. What do you think of that kind of "therapy"?

I actually don't know what to think about transgendering those who consider themselves in every way possible the opposite sex than they physically manifest as. From my understanding, no reputable psychologist or surgeon will advocate performing or perform this type of surgery lightly. But that I don't necessarily fully understand the physiological/psychological dynamic behind those who consider themselves transgendered doesn't mean I think they are mentally ill or have a disease and should be tortured out of their transgenderedness. Big difference.

Many things were done out of ignorance, but people learned and moved forward in their efforts to understand and correct their mistakes.

When one refers to Bieber in 2010, and uses this as justification for claiming gay people are "diseased" (and this is what Bieber's "conclusion" was -- that being gay was a disease) and can be "cured", then one is choosing -- willfully choosing -- to remain steeped in ignorance rather than to look at the evidence to the contrary, learn, and move forward.

Once you whip out Bieber's work as your basis for claiming gay people are diseased and that the disease can be cured, or that the fact they are somehow diseased diminishes their ability to be fully human and enjoy those gifts God has bestowed upon humanity -- like the capacity for giving and accepting love within a committed, intimate relationship -- you become the nutjob surgeon who, in 2010, says, "nah, enough with all this modern surgery, let's go back to the bad old days where we hacked and sawed and got it all wrong".

The evil lies in refusing to accept each and every human being as a fully realized individual, complete, deliberately designed by God, equally loved by God, chosen by God, known intimately by God. When you take another human being and try to torture an essential part of their humanity out of them because you can't get past your own bigotry, then you're evil. Period.

Homosexuals pairs are sterile. I want two homosexuals to bump uglies and make a baby, then I will believe they have nature's blessing.

Natural born urges? Child molesters also have natural, inherent urges they can't help. No grounds there either.

You just can't reason someone out of a position they haven't reasoned themselves into to being with.

There are mutations all through out the natural world. The ones that are meant to be thrive and reproduce. The that aren't - don't. I've yet to see two homosexuals prodcue a child. It's a reoccuring psychological mutation.

Men wanting to be women, women wanting to be men. It's as natural as a person being born with a deformity but let's stop acting like it's "normal" and "perfectly fine". We seek to help and cure the handicap, this is no different.

A lot of parades in my neck of the woods. Of course as a social creature if I couldn't gain the population's exceptance or couldn't procreate I'd need a self esteem boost too complete with banners and floats.

I'd probably have a little more respect for the gay community if their rallies weren't always full of leather chaps, shirtless people and all that other tastlessness. For not wanting to be viewed based on their sexuality alone they sure do flaunt it in the raunchiest fashion possible.

People attending rallies are not representative of the majority of gay men and women just as the few racist KKK members I could scrounge up aren't representative of all men and women who consider themselves part of the Tea Party.

There are plenty of sterile men and women -- do we forbid them to marry, by your logic? Sterility, again, is not gay-specific. If inability to produce biological children as the byproduct of a union is the grounds for the immorality of that union, then men and women who know they cannot produce children yet marry are as guilty of immorality as a gay couple who marries is, by your logic.

Child molestors do not have natural urges. Their "urges" disregard the humanity of their victims. Child molestors are exactly the same as grown men who rape grown women -- it's heterosexual, everyone's legally of age, yet it's immoral because the act of one perpetrated upon the other disregards the humanity of the other.

Those who consider themselves transgendered remain a mystery to me, but I don't dehumanize them and I don't say vile things about them in the vile, bigoted, ignorant, uneducated tone you take, Frank. Again, dehumanizing the other is a sin, a very grave sin.

Lots of parades in my neck of the woods, too, dear. If I suspect there will be things there I don't want to see, I don't go. It's called being a grown up. And if there are things going on that I believe are a violation of the law, I speak up regardless of the parade's theme.

So those born with a deformity are not as human as you, Frank? That's nice. How about men and women wounded in war -- they lose a limb protecting your right to spout off whatever ignorant, hateful garbage you want, and they become abnormal, sub-human freaks?

You man enough, Frank, to go down to your local VA hospital and stand in a room of soldiers who are recovering from devastating injuries and say that as loud and proud as you do here?

I'm guessin' not, because the truth about men like you and Frank and BroKen is you're real big men on teh internets while you're sniggering over your hate speech, but when you have to actually stand in front of one of the targets of your particularly ignorant, small-minded hatred, you haven't got the balls.

Surgery isn't therapy? It often is for cancer patients or if you have a compound fracture. I'm sure the doctors who perform sex change operations believe they are bringing healing to a person who needs some healing. If they didn't, what's the point? Surely not just cosmetic!

You seem to miss the point about the sex change operations.

I don't know much about Bieber or this NARTH group, but if a patient asked a doctor for help eliminating uncontrollable urges and the doctor failed to convince the patient simply to accept and act on those urges... should the doctor then give up on the patient or should the doctor continue to act on the patient's behalf. Surgeons who do sex change operations continue to act on the patients wishes even though you might think it barbaric. If the patient continues to ask the doctor for help... should the doctor quit?

You have made statements to the effect that gayness is essential to one's humanity. It most certainly is not. Maleness and femaleness may be essential but gayness is not even if it were proven (unlikely) to be a genetically based state.

You have also made somewhat inflammatory remarks about those whose views differ from yours as if a person who thinks homosexual behavior is sinful MUST be backward and/or evil since (apparently in your mind) if one thinks some behavior is sinful, then they must hate the sinner, too. So, it appears that your hostility to the Roman Catholic Church's teaching is misguided.

As Frank points out, homosexual behavior is a biological dead end. Therefore, it is also a sociological dead end. Theologically? God does not bless dead ends.

Surgery? I wouldn't classify surgery as "therapy" in the same sense pharmaceutical, psychological, and/or naturopathic approaches to treatment are. But if you want to, fine -- changes nothing? You're dickering over semantics.

I'm not at all missing your intended point about sex-change operations. I'm just not getting suckered into your game. I honestly and openly admit those situations are something I know very little about. ?There's nothing wrong with admitting you just don't know enough about something to make a definitive statement. It's called humility. However, no matter what, those people who find themselves thinking they are people of a particlar sex trapped in a body of the opposite sex are every bit as much human and I will not dehumanize them by categorizing them as anything less.

An ethical doctor does not mislead individuals into treatment that a) has been proven to be ineffective and b) has been proven to be severely psychologcally damaging. By your logic, the same doctors who perform these sick and dehumanizing aversion therapies on others would be as morally bound to perform them on heterosexual individuals who wish to cultivate responses to homoerotic stimuli as they claim they are to perform them on children whose parents suspect them of exhibiting "gay" behavior.

No one particular orientation is essential to human well being. Being able to give and accept love in an intimate union is essential to human well being. If individuals of any particular orientation choose to avoid intimate relationships, fine, that's their choice. But forbidding them the possibility is immoral.

I am not "hostile" to the Catholic Church's teachings. I am disgusted by the kinds of ignorant bigotry people try to justify by the Catholic Church's teachings. The Church, as an institution, is very much the less for it. I disagree with the actual Church teaching on homosexuality, but at least I know what it is, and I, unlike Rick, know that considering homosexuality a disease or a mental illness, and that these aversion therepies are absolutely NOT in keeping with Church teaching.

I think anyone who, in 2010, believes, in spite of the evidence, in spite of Church teaching, still believes homosexuality is a mental illness or a physiological disease and who advocates for the kinds of treatments Bieber and NARTH suggest is either incredibly backward (stupid, ignorant, dumb -- choose your perjorative) or evil.

God does not bless what you, in your very flawed, human state consider "dead ends"?

How arrogant! Who are you to tell others what and/or who God may or may not bless? That statement alone echoes Lucifer's insistance that God must love him more. Worked out real well for Lucifer, didn't it?

Mentally retarded people are "dead ends" in many people's minds. Guess we should just abort 'em, then, eh? Hey...it's your logic, not mine...

Gay people are no less able to control their attraction than straight people.

Again, you're trying to equate being homosexual with something gone wrong by basically making crap up.

Unless maybe you have uncontrollable urges when it comes to your attractions? Should we alert the local authorities in your area? Have them see if there are any unsolved sexual assaults in the area, or something, you may be linked to...?

Wow, did I say anyone isn't human? I am saying they are mentally ill. You assume I am some sort of gay bashing, gay hating, intolerant person. You have no idea.

I simply do not agree with it. I do base my views off of the fact that it is a mutation of the psychological sort and not "normal" - therefore accepting it as such is immoral.

I know it's hard to believe that I can find something disgusting, simply voice my opinion and have my beliefs stop there.

In fact I don't even vote against gay marriage because that would be imposing my views. However I will always speak out that I find it repulsive, wrong, immoral, etc.

I really don't assume that you are stupid or any of the things that you listed me as. I assume you are basing your position off of completely different grounds. For me that's what it all comes down to. There is a difference between holding an opinion that others find offensive versus flat out hurling insults.

Stand in front of wounded vets and speak my mind? Sure, to speak my mind in front of a wounded vet all I would have to do is talk to myself. But you're right, two actual combat tours - I must not be man enough. Way to keep it above the belt.

I didn't say disfigured, dismembered, handicap people were subhuman. I said I seek to help them. Following that I'd say the mentally disordered homosexuals need help as well.

When I see a man acting like a woman I think it'd be as weird as my dog suddenly acting like a bird. To me, just my opinion here, something isn't quite right there. Something has detoured from nature's design and intent.

I know you won't believe this but I have a handful of gay relatives and yes they know I see it as not being normal. How can we possibly talk, hang out, etc.? Because to us it's the same as the fact that as a Protestant I married a Catholic. If I waited for a person's beliefs to align with mine I would be a lonely, lonely man.

I don't damn them, it's truly not my job. I just don't agree. I love people beyond that EVEN THOUGH I disagree. But you're right I'm the small minded, backwoods idiot.

Like I said, you really have no idea. Please stick to the issue and keep the gloves up if you would. I know I'm not going to change anybody's mind but I come on sites like these to just toss it back and forth. That usually leads me to a better understanding.

You did lose me when you said a molesters urges aren't natural to them. What are they then? It really is just their sexual preference. Wither they ever act on it or not you can still see the inherent immorality there. So the fact that homosexual tendencies are natural to the homosexual does not, to me, justify their lifestyle.

I would never advocate shock therapy. I'm also not a big fan of going under the knife if it can be avoided.

I think it's funny you tell us our dead-end theory is not blessed by God and then the very next sentence you damn us for saying what is and is not blessed. I'm not speaking for God, I'm speaking for what I find true. Notice I didn't invoke the name of God.

I'm sorry, I guess I shouldn't say "uncontrolable" as you really ran with that. I'm not sure what word you would use but I was refering to the fact that many sexually deviant people claim it's not by choice. That their desires are inherent, natural, born that way, what have you.

And I don't find any attempt at humorous sexual accusations to be even slightly funny. If anything I'd be weary of the "if it feels good do it" crowd that you so diligently defend.

Caroline continues to build straw men, then beats those who disagree with her over the head with them... making up "facts" and then using them as counter-arguments is the method used by those who can't defend their positions otherwise...

I've yet to find where NARTH engages in shock therapy or where they "torture the gay" out of people, and yet these false premises are central to Caroline's rebuttal...

I never said that homosexuality is a disease, I used the word disorder... as in un-natural... yet Caroline used that false premise to defend her positions...

To counter the argument put forth by Caroline that those who think homosexuality to be a disorder or unnatural are immature, I post links to Bieber (at the NARTH) site which then causes Caroline to speak of torture and shock therapy, neither of which are mentioned by Bieber or by NARTH, instead, she finds links to Reker and attempts to smear NARTH, Bieber, me and whomever else with Reker's stains... again, Caroline, you're using lies, false premises, half-truths and irrelevant material to make your case... and then you revert to personal insults and ad hominems in the attempt to make your arguments... all indicative of your weak position, your position based more on emotion rather than thought, in other words, utilitarianism, the very thing Howell argued against in the original piece...

Now you attempt to smear Frank, a wounded vet himself, with not being man enough...

At some point, if Caroline has any integrity, she'll stop emoting and start thinking...

Rick, grow a pair and address me directly, or shut up. You've run away like the lily-livered, yellow-bellied bullying coward you are every time I've addressed YOU directly. As for integrity, you couldn't be more wrong. For all you're so Brutally Honest, you don't have what it takes to deal with anyone who gives it right back atcha, do you? You're a typical bully, and you think it makes you a man. You couldn't be more wrong.

Also -- Bieber and members of NARTH have personally engaged in aversion therapy, some sessions including electric shock, others including chemical substances causing pain and illness. NARTH still advocates aversion therapy, only now they've gone all cagey and cutesy and labelled it "reparative therapy". If you weren't aware of that, you shouldn't have linked to either Bieber or NARTH. Bieber, until the day he died, claimed homosexuality was a disease -- it was a classification his colleagues tried to get him to move away from, but he was relentless about it. YOU linked to Bieber as someone whose work you were basing your opinions on. Again, if you weren't aware of that, you shouldn't have pulled his name out of a hat.

That Rekers himself was both a highly vocal advocate for aversion therapy, and personally practiced aversion therapy on children as young as four -- FOUR!!! -- whose parents thought they exhibited gay behavior (at FOUR!!!), that he loudly and proudly preached the message that gay people are mentally ill and can be cured via these highly unethical and immoral techniques, but was a closeted, practicing homosexual himself is important when you link to an organization he was a prominent member of as some kind of basis for your opinion.

First of all, it is not a "fact" that homosexuality is a psychological disorder. If it's your opinion, fine, own it, but do not claim it's a "fact". It's not.

I don't find it at all hard to believe that you find gay people disgusting. You've made that stunningly clear to all.

Gay men don't act like women. Gay men act like gay men.

When you claim you personally know gay people are mentally ill because your opinion tells you it's a fact homosexuality is a psychological disorder, you're dehumanizing them. You're using your personal sense of digust and your personal opinion to categorize them as having some kind of mental illness so you can condescend to them and/or treat them as something not fully, wholly human.

BTW -- that's also what makes you small minded and backwards and a bigot.

People claimed all sorts of things about black people -- that they're brains aren't capable of the same level of academic achievement white people are, for example -- and then called that opinion a "fact" and made hideous, hateful laws based on that "fact".

What you're doing is exactly the same thing.

Unless you have evidence -- hard, scientific proof -- that homosexuality is the direct result specifically of a particular mental illness, it ain't a fact, honey. It's nothing more than your opinion. And, while you're free to voice your opinion all you like, you're not precluded from suffering the consequences of spouting your opinion as if it's a "fact".

When you do that, dear, I do indeed "have an idea". You showed me what you believe when you claimed it's a "fact" gay people are gay because they suffer from mental illness. You don't want me to have that idea, don't put it out there.

I was referring to "BroKen's" use of the term "uncontrollable urges".

Just because someone has an attraction, or feels desire for something or someone one, does not mean they have an uncontrollable urge to act upon that attraction or desire. That's the same for gay and straight people. That BroKen was trying to not-so-subtly paint gay people as being unable to refrain from acting on their attractions or desires as if they were criminally dangerous was what I was refuting. Just flipped it on him, is all.

I have not at all defended the "if it feels good, do it" crowd at all. You must have skipped over large portions of what I wrote. I hold all people to the same standard of sexual behavior. I believe sex belongs in a committed relationship, that one is never to use sex to harm or manipulate another, or to use sex in order to enjoy a quick moment of physical gratification. That goes for everyone -- straight or gay.

Sexual predators, sexual aggressors, child molestors, etc., are acting out violence and control games via criminal, inappropriate, immoral sexual activity. That is not natural. It's also not legal.

I believe homosexuality is part of God's natural design, and that being part of a committed union is part of God's natural design, therefore committed gay relationships in which gay people are natural.

I do not believe it is part of God's natural design for men to hide in stairwells, for example, and prey upon vulnerable adults or children passing by, holding them by gunpoint, and forcing themselves sexually on those victims. I do not believe is part of God's natural design for grown men to visit their little girls' bedrooms and molest them.

To try to equate homosexual intimacy within a committed relationships with random acts of criminal sexual aggression is really, really wrong. Deeply wrong. And about as dehumanzing as it gets.

Rick, grow a pair and address me directly, or shut up. You've run away like the lily-livered, yellow-bellied bullying coward you are every time I've addressed YOU directly. As for integrity, you couldn't be more wrong. For all you're so Brutally Honest, you don't have what it takes to deal with anyone who gives it right back atcha, do you? You're a typical bully, and you think it makes you a man. You couldn't be more wrong.

You're projecting... again... maybe it's because you wish you were a man... I'm really not sure, nor do I really care. People who know me know I'm lots of things... but a "yellow-bellied bullying coward" ain't one of 'em... anyone who reads this thread with a shred of objectivity would be able to tell in a heartbeat who it is that's engaging in cowardly and bullying behavior... as to running away... umm... been right here... I left the last comment between us... and closed by directly addressing you... and you chose 4 days to respond... who ran away again? The behavior you're engaging in here is bordering on the pathological.

Also -- Bieber and members of NARTH have personally engaged in aversion therapy, some sessions including electric shock, others including chemical substances causing pain and illness. NARTH still advocates aversion therapy, only now they've gone all cagey and cutesy and labelled it "reparative therapy". If you weren't aware of that, you shouldn't have linked to either Bieber or NARTH. Bieber, until the day he died, claimed homosexuality was a disease -- it was a classification his colleagues tried to get him to move away from, but he was relentless about it. YOU linked to Bieber as someone whose work you were basing your opinions on. Again, if you weren't aware of that, you shouldn't have pulled his name out of a hat.

Your repeating assertions for which you provide no evidence doesn't make the assertions true. Show us where you're getting this information, specifically dealing with electric shock and chemical substances causing pain. It would seem that this would be pretty simple to do given your passion for it. So to quote your own words... "grow a pair... (provide links)... or shut up."

That Rekers himself was both a highly vocal advocate for aversion therapy, and personally practiced aversion therapy on children as young as four -- FOUR!!! -- whose parents thought they exhibited gay behavior (at FOUR!!!), that he loudly and proudly preached the message that gay people are mentally ill and can be cured via these highly unethical and immoral techniques, but was a closeted, practicing homosexual himself is important when you link to an organization he was a prominent member of as some kind of basis for your opinion.

I've read enough to question Mr. Rekers integrity.. I didn't link to anything the man said or did... and I'm not one who arbitrarily smears an entire organization just because of someone in that organization has issues... otherwise, based solely on your behavior on this thread, I'd have to smear women generally...

I believe homosexuality is part of God's natural design, and that being part of a committed union is part of God's natural design, therefore committed gay relationships in which gay people are natural.

You're entitled to those beliefs... but again, to use your own words - "Unless you have evidence -- hard, scientific proof... it ain't a fact, honey. It's nothing more than your opinion. And, while you're free to voice your opinion all you like, you're not precluded from suffering the consequences of spouting your opinion as if it's a "fact"."

See how that works?

To try to equate homosexual intimacy within a committed relationships with random acts of criminal sexual aggression is really, really wrong. Deeply wrong. And about as dehumanzing as it gets.

Yet you engage in behavior right here on this thread that dehumanizes those that disagree with you and that's ok?

Caroline, you mistake my intention with "uncontrollable urges." But it doesn't really matter.

I will say about "dead ends" that you continue to conflate people with behavior. I said "homosexual behavior is a dead end." That is a fact, not opinion. You apparently have trouble dealing with that fact so, you change it to a person, e.g. mentally retarded person, which makes me look bad. I never said any person is a dead end. That is not my statement or my logic. It is really uncharitable of you to smear me like that. Why do you feel it necessary to do so?

Rick, I was travelling the past four days. I was referring to that bullshit "Caroline says..." crap you're pulling. You've weaseled out of explaining why you chose Bieber/NARTH as resources to back up your position re homosexuality several times. Anyone with any objectivity can read up this thread and see that you couldn't man up and explain your position at all.

Rick, I provided links, and we all have Google -- the onus is on YOU now to prove I'm wrong. The reason you've run away from that every single time I've asked is because you can't and you know it. That's not me not putting my money where my mouth is, that's you -- over and over and over again. You threw a link up there with zero explanation, zero commentary, and you still haven't said what it is at NARTH or what it is that Bieber wrote that you're agreeing with. So what is it? Say it. Put it out there already. Still can't do it, can you?

Rick, I don't make the claim my beliefs and opinions are FACTS, like Frank did. YOU asked me to explain why Howell's letter didn't support his notion that homosexuality is intrinsically immoral -- I explained why. Your response was to toss up a link to a disgusting organization and to a dead psychologist whose work was in question over fifty years ago, and is now completely refuted.

I don't dehumanize people when I tell them exactly what I think and what their behavior tells them about me. Seems like you think it's okay for you to call names and sneer at others, yet when someone gets back in your face, you cry and whine like a baby about how I'm sooo mean, wahwahwah...

Like I said, man up and grow a pair. You're a typical little bully, big-man-on-teh-interwebs d-bag, dude. You're real good with the sneering, snide, snarky crap, and ripping people down, and you luuuuvvv to put shit out there that makes you think you're tough, but when it comes down to taking personal responsibility for any of the crap you cut and paste and slap up on this blog, you run away -- you can't do it.

Well, why use the term "uncontrollable urges", then? You say I mistake your use of it -- what was your intent? You folks keep putting this stuff out there and then get all pissy when you're asked to justify it.

There are those who would claim the behavior, or behavioral limitations, of the mentally retarded are "dead ends" in one way or another. Behaviors don't exist in a vacuum -- they are attached to human beings. There are those who believe all fetuses testing positive for Downs', for example, should be aborted because of their behavioral and intellectual limitatons. There are those who believe the mentally retarded should be institutionalized and shut away, cut off from the benefits of living in society.

You say homosexual behavior is a dead end. Why? Is the only purpose of sexual intimacy breeding? If so, wouldn't the sexual intimacy of permanently and irreversibly infertile heterosexuals be every bit as much a dead end? Should we force all heterosexual couples to undergo stringent fertility testing prior to marriage and then deny them marriage once we know their union will never produce a child?

As for turning your chosen set of behaviors into an actual human face, I do it because homosexuals are humans, too -- when you tell them that they may not enjoy the benefits of a committed, intimate relationship with another human being because they are biological dead ends, it's the same thing as telling a mother that her mentally retarded child cannot join in any typical childhood social and academic activities because, hey, we all know they're dead ends and will never be self-sufficient, productive members of society.

It's the same thing, only, in your mind, you've turned gay people into the "other", into something just less human enough to justify your wish to deny them official recognition as a couple.

What's it to you? Why would you deny gay people the right to marry just because you think what they do is icky, or a biological dead end? If it's a biological dead end, so what? Do you tell your menopausal mother she can't sleep with your father anymore because it's a biological dead end? Her behavior is every bit as much a dead end, by your logic, as is a gay couple's. So now it's immoral for her to be intimate with her husband?

Why is it immoral for two gay human beings to enjoy the unitive aspects of a committed intimate relationship, but not for sterile or infertile heterosexuals to enjoy those benefits?

Rick, I was travelling the past four days. I was referring to that bullshit "Caroline says..." crap you're pulling. You've weaseled out of explaining why you chose Bieber/NARTH as resources to back up your position re homosexuality several times. Anyone with any objectivity can read up this thread and see that you couldn't man up and explain your position at all.

Caroline... I was addressing the readers in the first part of my reply... and you in the last part. See how that works? And I've weaseled out of nothing except perhaps deciding that you're no longer worth the time and effort to respond and that instead I think you need serious psychological help. If anyone is weaseling on this thread, it'd be you... dear...

Rick, I provided links, and we all have Google -- the onus is on YOU now to prove I'm wrong. The reason you've run away from that every single time I've asked is because you can't and you know it. That's not me not putting my money where my mouth is, that's you -- over and over and over again. You threw a link up there with zero explanation, zero commentary, and you still haven't said what it is at NARTH or what it is that Bieber wrote that you're agreeing with. So what is it? Say it. Put it out there already. Still can't do it, can you?

You've provided no links to substantiate the electric shock and torture claims... none... try again... and you need to read the thread again and see that I indeed provided an explanation as to my links to NARTH (or more specifically, Bieber's piece)... what is happening here is that your comprehension skills are being impacted by your venom...

Rick, I don't make the claim my beliefs and opinions are FACTS, like Frank did. YOU asked me to explain why Howell's letter didn't support his notion that homosexuality is intrinsically immoral -- I explained why. Your response was to toss up a link to a disgusting organization and to a dead psychologist whose work was in question over fifty years ago, and is now completely refuted.

So you didn't write "My conclusions are facts, and anyone who is genuinely interested in the truth will bother to do the research."? Someone hijacked your PC?

AndBieber's opinsion have certainly been refuted by those more interested in furthering an agenda than they are in getting to the truth... those more interested in kowtowing to the political correctness of our day... but I'm not really seeing anything that substantively refutes Bieber's claims... which, interestingly enough, I can say the same for your allegations against the man... funny how that works.

I don't dehumanize people when I tell them exactly what I think and what their behavior tells them about me. Seems like you think it's okay for you to call names and sneer at others, yet when someone gets back in your face, you cry and whine like a baby about how I'm sooo mean, wahwahwah...

You're projecting again Caroline... do you understand what that means? Perhaps you should look it up... it's quite educational and perfectly describes what it is you're doing... time and again...

Like I said, man up and grow a pair. You're a typical little bully, big-man-on-teh-interwebs d-bag, dude. You're real good with the sneering, snide, snarky crap, and ripping people down, and you luuuuvvv to put shit out there that makes you think you're tough, but when it comes down to taking personal responsibility for any of the crap you cut and paste and slap up on this blog, you run away -- you can't do it.

Hang on... let me check... why yes, I do indeed have a pair... and.. hang on... no... they don't seem to be disappearing... to your chagrin... and again... you're projecting... it's quite un-becoming Caroline... Thankfully, there are professionals who can help with this problem you're having... regular intakes of prescription drugs can also help...

My conclusions about what, dear? Why don't you follow through with that, baby boy? You are so appallingly dishonest and dishonorable, it's disgusting.

You know damned well I was referring to the conclusions that aversion therapy is inhumane, unethical, and roundly rejected by ethical psychologists the world over. Nice try, but you keep tipping your hand every time you spout off -- you just want justification to hate gays. I get it. It's clear. Duh.

Bieber's published study speaks for itself. Haven't you even read it?? Go read it. Then go research the body of psychological work done by those who refuted his claims that homosexuality was a disease -- HIS word. That you and your ilk choose to reject the overwhelming majority of psychological studies regarding homosexual behavior in lieu of a decades-old, now-rejected, very poorly studied hypothesis of a man with an obvious agenda again proves you're just looking to hate on gays. Dude, own it -- you aren't alone -- the Westboro Baptist Church will welcome you with open arms!

Yes, I know what "projecting" means, but if that's your example of me projecting, then you don't. I haven't complained about you being meeaaan and calling names to me, although you've done it time and time again. I don't care if you do. Seriously. Don't give a hot damn. Say what you will. I don't pretend to be "brutally honest" on teh internets.

I'm a fu*king bitch on wheels in real life all the time.

So have at it. Knock yourself out.

I also don't tolerate the ignorant, sh*tty, mean, petty kind of hatred you and your pals have engaged in here, no matter how hard you try to dress it up as something else. Deal with it. Or don't. I still think you're disgusting.

You STILL run away from the topic at hand and turn this into the oh-so-typical diatribe about me and how I'm crazy and horrible and mean...big yawn...whatever...didn't expect a whole lot more.

Anyway, you have a great life dedicating yourself to hating homosexual people in order to make yourself feel more of a man.

Like I said, God sees you -- He knows what you are -- and that's all that matters -- He sees you here and it counts, dude. God is real. Very real. You will die one day, and you will stand before Him, and you will be held accountable. Big news flash -- he won't accept a printed out copy of your blog as an answer...

Because you still haven't defended your link. You still haven't explained your choice of resources. You still haven't, actually, really taken much of a stand on anything. You've sort of hinted at and generally leaned in the direction of and pointed to links about other people's work, etc., but you haven't said what you believe, nor have you explained what exactly you agree with in the NARTH/Bieber material.

You can't keep deflecting your responsibility by tossing it back on me.

Everyone here can google Bieber, can read through NARTH's own archives and bibliography lists. A five minute google search will enlighten anyone who is interested on the reasons why Bieber and NARTH are not accepted resources by the psychological community in general.

But YOU still haven't taken responsibility for your insinuatons, your implications, your notion that homosexuality is a disease and that it can be "cured" (Bieber, NARTH).

Why don't you quote me the relevant passages from the published results of Bieber's studies, and why don't you point me to specific pages at NARTH which support your opinion on the origins/causes of homosexuality.

C'mon, big man -- take a stand -- put it out there and own it instead of waffling adn sidestepping and dithering and deflecting. S'matter, big guy -- not so brutally honest and plain-speaking when there's a chance it might cost you something?

In a disordered world, where in fact that disorder is seen to be orderly, the presumption of guilt over innocense is probably seen to be the norm...

In the world I live in, innocence is presumed over guilt...

So Caroline... you're the one making the charge that Bieber used (and NARTH endorses the use) of shock treatment to "torture the gay" out of people... you're the one that needs to substantiate the charge...

You find links that state that shock therapy has been used as treatment for homosexuals and you leap to the conclusion that Bieber has used shock treatment and that NARTH endorses that use and that in fact both Biebere did or or NARTH is actively torturing the gay out of people...

And I'm not finding anything to substantiate it.

If we're to believe you, you have... umm... so why not take the seconds it would take to cut and paste it in a reply?

Here's an article that is decidedly anti-NARTH... yet interestingly enough, no mention is made of Bieber using shock therapy or of NARTH participating in anything that would be described as "torturing the gay" out of people.

Wonder why that is?

In any case, I'm still looking for Caroline's links... would love for others to join in that search... it's a little like the search for THE missing link... lots of false positives initially, but you dig a little deeper, and you find only that the elusive link remains elusive...

Wonder why that is?

I can only conclude that Caroline is blustering... because she emotes... rather than thinks... and is more comfortable in her disordered role as fu*king bitch than in a more thoughtful, and ordered role, as thinking person...

You asked me where I stood, you asked me to explain myself, and I was stupid enough to think you were interested in a genuine conversation, but instead you slapped up a stupid link which you refuse to explain or defend, and continue to run away from taking responsibility for.

All you can do now is call names and claim I'm crazy, therefore I'm not worth your time.

Fine. Like I said, knock yourself out. I'm sure it's makin' you feel all special and manly.

Truth is, you're coming off as a complete douche, some of your readers think so, and I have three emails in my inbox to that effect.

So you wonder away, dearie, but you've kinda shown more than a few of us the truth about yourself. We don't have to wonder when it comes to who you really are.

Have it your way. You're the big man. I'm the crazy bitch. Gay people are diseased, mentally ill people. You're right about everything. Everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. And so on. That's all you ever wanted -- you didn't want any kind of discourse -- you just wanted to slap something up, get some rah-rah posts in your comboxes, and move on to the next cut-and-paste job.

Ever notice there's zero original content here? Just links. Just other people's stuff. You never put your_self_ on the line. It's all braggadocio and pumped up snark and other people's words, pictures, ideas, thoughts.

So, Rick, what exactly did you "win" here...?? When you're alone and in the dark and the 'puter's off and the comboxes are empty and it's just you and God, what then, Rick? Gonna show Him your big, shiny I-kicked-someone's-ass-on-the-internet trophy?

Caroline... you called yourself a bitch... not me... let's keep the facts the facts... kewl?

And still no links... and now a new claim... emails from my readers charging me with being a douche... great... produce them as well... it's as easy as cutting and pasting... unless... you're telling lies... to advance your intentions... because the truth is that my readers don't have access to your email address unless they know you from outside this blog... weird huh?

So we know now you can't produce the emails (unless they're from like-minded friends) but perhaps you can produce those links... though I suspect they're made of the same stuff as those emails...

Progressive/conservative discussions on homosexuality always seem to take a similar path that evolution/creation debates take. Lots of name calling; basing the foundations of the arguments on lots of assumptions.

One assumption is this: that sexuality is central to one's humanity. I would put forward that it isn't. Lots of people go through life without having sex either ever or often.

And lots of them die of old age. Fulfilled.

Only filled with something else other than sex.

Is sexuality central to humanity? I wish people would try and answer that one first.

Caroline, you took "uncontrollable urge" to mean an urge that inevitably leads to an action. I meant it simply as an urge that is unwelcome and/or unbidden. For example, I might feel an urge to pick up the tip money on a table as I leave a restaurant. I don't ask for that "urge" and I would rather not even have to deal with it, but there it is, unrequested, unwanted... uncontrollable. But, of course, I can control my actions. I do not steal the money. A better word for what I meant might be "temptation". Temptations just come. As is sometimes said about such thoughts, "You can't keep the birds from flying over your head, but you can keep them from building a nest in your hair."

You say, "You folks keep putting this stuff out there and then get all pissy when you're asked to justify it."

If I got "pissy" (and I don't think I did) it was not because I was asked to justify my statement. But the insinuation of being a child-molester would offend anyone. Are you going to take responsibility for that foul comment?

That homosexual behavior is a "dead end" biologically (which is what I said) is obvious. I added that it is also sociologically and theologically a dead end.

It is a sociological dead end because if society grants a blessing on same sex couples, it cannot then counsel a somewhat confused 17 year old boy whose girlfriend just broke up with him, to stay away from that 25 year old man who is so nice to him and finds him very attractive.

It is a theological dead end because we were made in God's image, male and female. There is something mysterious about the union of a husband and wife which models the union of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The two become one, like the Three are One. That is most apparent in the fact that the two can literally become one flesh in the person of another human being, their child. THAT is what sex is about.

You repeat the silly notion that a childless, or infertile couple (don't bring my mother and father into this... they are dead) are JUST LIKE a homosexual couple. No, they are not. The act is the same for sexual couples even if the chance of procreation is near zero (just ask Sarah and Abraham.) For homosexual couples the chance is zero. It is NOT the same act and cannot be. To pretend that it is the same act is utter foolishness.

You ask... "Why is it immoral for two gay human beings to enjoy the unitive aspects of a committed intimate relationship, but not for sterile or infertile heterosexuals to enjoy those benefits?"

You are playing games here. You say "committed intimate relationship" when you mean sex. Why don't you say it? No one has any problem with same sex committed intimate relationships. Soldiers often have such love they are willing to die for each other. That's commitment. That's intimate. But it's not sex.

But to answer your real question, same sex sex is immoral because it is a sham. It is a fake. It masquerades as real when it is not and cannot be. Two men or two women cannot be united in the same way a man and a woman can be. In some ways it might be easier to try since you don't have to deal with all the Mars and Venus stuff ... but it cannot be the same, biologically, sociologically, or theologically.

I would answer that sexuality is central to human nature ("male and female, He created them")... but sexual behavior of individuals is not central or essential.

From my perspective, the problem is all about behavior. It isn't a problem of what urges or temptations a person experiences. We all experience those one way or another. But how we act on them determines our morality.

Caroline would restrict homosexuals to monogamous, committed relationships. Good for her. I would restrict them to chastity. She seems to think that makes me evil. I'm not sure why. Most likely though, we are both doomed to fail in our restrictions!

I'm not sure what you are asking, Leslie. Who is the person dealing with my comment?

I say men are men and women are women. Gay men are men who want sex with other men. They are still men. That is their nature. Lesbians are women who want sex with other women. They are still women. That is their nature. Bisexuals want sex with anybody, I guess. That doesn't change the fact that they are the sex they are. Transsexuals seem to me to be deeply confused individuals. They are the sex they were born regardless of what they feel they should be. Each letter group G L B T, is characterized by actions that they want to perform, not by their nature. I guess "straight" also describes the kind of sex one wants. So, none of those terms you list actually describe one's sexuality, but only the behavior one prefers.

Of course, our human nature is twisted. The list of options you give indicate some of that twistedness. You could add S and M and even another B if you wanted to. Even "straight" isn't as straight as it ought to be. Most of us find ways to use sex for our own purposes rather than give ourselves to the other.

I agree with you, but for example, while I was in university, it was taught that gender labels like male and female were not absolutes and instead were a human construct...a made-up concept, if you will. And that none of us were fully male or female but existed on some kind of continuum. Someone with female genitalia might be more male in nature and vice versa. Ultimately, we were told we needed to stop thinking of people in terms of simply male or female. This is common in academia and, I believe, is what lays the foundation for the Bible to be read in such a way that accepts and even endorses homosexuality.

I just feel that the Christian church engages in the homosexuality debate without addressing the fundamental differences in the way "sex" (as an adjective) is viewed in postmodern culture.

If we found a good way to articulate this, I think our homosexuality debates would proceed more peacefully.

Wow, sexual spectrum? What a bunch of maroons! I've heard Tony Campolo lampoon a fellow professor who taught that potty training is the key to psychology. "The child struggles to produce the 'gift'." Tony says, "I'd never heard it called that before!" "And what does Momma do with the gift? She flushes it and so tells the child that her effort is worthless to society." Tony says, "There is nothing quite so fascinating as watching a brilliant man expound on a stupid idea."

Stupid idea! I'm reminded of some of the ritual O.T. laws that some like to lampoon about mixing field types or fabric types. I think at least some of the point of those laws is; a thing is what it is and not something else. Don't go mixing categories, blurring distinctions. If there are no categories, it is not possible to think clearly.

I recently heard a guy predict that within ten years or so, the higher education system in the U.S. will collapse because it is getting so expensive and the product is so bad. May it happen sooner rather than later. As your example indicates, they do not teach people how to think... since they eliminate categories... they teach WHAT to think.

Coming back to this thread, I don't know if Caroline is post-modern. She does seem to accept some notion of natural law, twisted though it is. She buys the "some people are born that way" and is moved by misplaced compassion for them.

But to stop thinking of people in terms of male and female is simply to stop thinking.